Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
the tax burden that americans are paying to the federal government. given that, do you support the proposal put forward by john boehner? >> well, because the proposal is significantly amorphous, you could get those revenues through economic growth and we don't really have things nailed down, i don't want to talk about a hypothetical, but there is a danger that when you put revenues on the table, even revenues through economic growth, if you grew at 4% a year, reagan levels, instead of 2%, french levels or obama levels, you would net $5 trillion in additional revenue to the government, you could pay down all of obama's additional debt by higher levels of growth, not raising taxes. so there's a lot of money to be gotten from growth. how they do this, we have to see it written down, but because the obama administration and spokesmen have been so emphatic about all taxes and no spending restraint, all taxes and actually spend -- another stimulus, another solyndra stimulus program -- >> i don't think they've mentioned solyndra, grover, but i'm sure they appreciate your mentioning of
unemployment rates but you have a short-term stimulus where the federal government comes in, more fema people coming in, you get a short-term boost in employment because of these disasters. the other thing that will happen with the fiscal cliff is the massive withdraw of government spending and we haven't talked about that as much as taxes. people with less money because of tax cuts going away would have less money to spend into the economy but also the federal government withdrawing federal spending from parts of the economy that are used to getting it, the military, et cetera but other sectors nonmilitary. that's the other piece that could hurt people. >> when we talk about the fiscal cliff and back and forth that is happening between the white house and the hill, i guess i'm confused because on one hand there is a sense that this is all par for the course, they know they're going to get a deal done, it's fine, everything is good and then there's also this sort of the pr blitz which is, we are very far from a deal. this is what ayman alluded to this, the speaker had a press conference a few
that licenses the people to be able to drive on the streets. it's not the federal government. i'm not surprised i'm being sued, but that's the law and i'm going to obey my oath of office. >> it is worth noting that according to the arizona republic, the state already grants licenses to noncitizens with work permits. brewer seems to be singling out those who have received their permits through the department of homeland security's executive action. translation, jan brewer is picking a fight with president obama. michael steele, i have to go to you first on this. >> okay. sure, why not. >> i'm sorry, my friend. you have spoken at length and substantively about the problem that the gop has, not only with minorities but specifically with latinos. here we have a governor, we know the gop has been tripped up by actions at the state level, seems to be happening again with brewer. why is she pursuing this now. >> i don't know. it's clearly something within the water of her state. >> the water supply of arizona. >> which is dwindling. >> i think governors look at things like this through a different pri
would have to pay more taxes to the federal government. >> yeah. and remember, too, these negotiations last summer were in private. this wasn't something that filtered out. there wasn't really a focus on what would that $800 billion in refb new be composed of? would it hurt the charitable interest deduction, the mortgage interest deduction. back then it was big round numbers. the other thing, during those negotiations as the congressman said, obama sort of came back to the table and if you talk to republicans, one thing that blew up those negotiations obama said he needed more revenue, needed $1.2 trillion and that fell apart. but the other thing that's changeds is simply that the american people have weighed in an election and re-elected the president and tilts the see-saw in what democrats would like in a larger revenue. >> the economy is in a different position, the president actually did sign into law a series of cuts, he's proposed a lot in his 2013 budget. it's not like he's been stagnant. we've been having this argument throughout the presidential campaign and guess what? as we
is a bloated federal government. a bloated federal government that wants to spend too much to help the poor. >> government's approach has been to expand bureaucracy and spend lots of money on bloated top-down anti-poverty programs. we're trying to measure compassion by how much we spend not by how many people we help. >> the takeaway, we care. we care about the same things we always cared about -- cutting taxes and slashing the government. in "the daily beast" calling this attempt at rebranding, if you will, gaseous rhetoric. saying until these guys actually embrace some amount of policy change, it's same old, same old. >> you know i think rubio at least his suits fit better than paul ryan's suits do. watching them, on the one hand it's cool watching them being -- trying to be progressive. but it's -- these suits are ill-fitting these compassion -- sudden compassion for the poor. it's a little bit like listening to bloomberg speak spanish. >> nice try but awkward. >> i'm happy to hear paul ryan talking about the poor and i hope this is a trend in the republican party. >> i don't know -- if
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)